Things have been nuts.

We decided to contact thr Kennedy-Krieger Institute and see what they could do to help the children. Trent has come so far basically what we need is just to make sure he stays on the right track and continues to do as brilliantly as he already has. Zoe, however...needs more help. She can still barely speak and her inability to communicate frustrates her tremendously, so she also has need of some behavioral help. She is doing better, but at this point I honestly don't know what decision to make for her academically. I don't want to stigmatize her by keeping her in kindergarten another year, and I don't want to send her on to first grade if she isn't ready. We're in limbo right now. Literally. Of the two, she is definitely in need of the most help. I hope the people at KKI know what to do, because I honestly don't.

And to think I was going to homeschool my children. I have surpassed the border of unqualified and wandered into the hemisphere of completely incapable with stops in inept and fairly useless-ville. Currently residing in what the hell do I do?-burg.

Okay, I'll stop.

We have appointments to take the babies in for diagnostics, which we have to do first or Aetna won't cover any of the costs of autism treatment for either of them. I'm amazed they couldn't give us the diagnoses over the phone; as many questions as the intake specialist asked me. I mean, these people are THOROUGH. I was on the phone with them for an hour and 18 minutes (plus change). They even asked me my mother's maiden name. Not sure why that's important. Decorum prevailed, however, as they left me some secrets. Yup, my weight and underpants size are all mine.

Yes indeed. Guarding those jewels of knowledge with my life. MY LIFE, I say!!

Heh.

Anyway, I hope these people can do something positive for my babies. They are good children and they deserve good things.

In other news...

We finally made it to South Carolina, where we visited my delightful mother-in-law and no one got food poisoning from fast food (avoided 'Jack In the Box' this time, an establishment which after our last exposure will forever be known as 'Puke In the Bed') or ended up in the hospital. All in all, a fine trip.

I've recently become re-enamored with doll collecting. In response, Larry gifted me with this little guy:

His name is Malachi, and he is a repaint/reroot/fanged/beautiful blue-eyed wonder recreated by Mamma Rabb of DemonKidz.

I am so in love with this little undead boy it is unreal. But sadly, so is Zoe. She calls him 'the baby' and wants to play with him, but I'm not sure his facial paint and tiny fangs could survive my girl's somewhat less than gentle handling. So for now he's in a safe place where I can take him out and look lovingly upon him, then put him back for his own wellbeing.

Between the IEP meetings, snow days, traveling and now the prospect of much work ahead with the KKI, I have been pretty stressed. When this happens I turn to electronic media and religion. The electronic media part has been almost obsessive. I've played Silent Hill: Origins so much I've achieved every accolade, unlocked every secret and gotten all three endings at least twice each. I also had a pretty hot dream about Travis (central character in the game) a couple of nights ago, which has me wondering if perhaps it isn't time to move on to another game now.

Heh again.

Religion...well, that one's not so comforting right now. Every year around easter I start to have that I'd really like to go back to the catholic church feeling. It makes no sense. For a variety of reasons:
* I have never been comfortable in any church
* I don't agree with very much of christianity at all
* I never did enjoy the company of christians even when I was one, whom it has been my experience are the most hateful, nosy, gossipy, judgemental, two-faced people on the planet
* Churches are full of backstabbing people who pretend to be good friends then go on to spread your personal business throughout the rest of the congregation
* Missing church generates a lecture on personal responsibility even when it can't be avoided
* No matter how hard one works it is never enough
* No matter how hard one works it is never GOOD enough
* Rampant misogyny
* Conflicting messages (if I am to be subservient to my husband according to god's will/law, why am I expected to force him to come to church?)
* I am naturally artistic and have an education in writing, why is it that those gifts are not beneficial and my only place is in the church kitchen? (I love to cook, but can't I use my other gifts as well?)
* Which is more important, grace or law? Until I can find a church that can definitely answer that question (and isn't full of nosy, gossipy assclown types), there is no church for me.
* The catholic church is the only sect of christianity I can stomach, but marrying a non-catholic then remarrying someone else after divorcing him is a huge catholic no-no.
* I'd have to get an anullment I can not financially or emotionally afford, or otherwise be cut off from receiving the sacraments. In the catholic church, no sacraments equals no grace. If one dies in a state of not having god's grace, he or she is doomed to hell. In effect, the non-sacramental catholic is cut off from god.
* Have I mentioned my discomfort and general lack of trust in christians (and their supposed spiritual and moral superiority)?
* I am having a difficult time reconciling within myself the concept of becoming that which I most despise

Just damned tired in general.

I think things will be different this time, though. I'm going to do my ritual in the morning rather than wait until the end of the day, which should help tremendously. Also, Larry will be home that morning so either he can corral the babies for a little while or I can get up an hour or two earlier and do it while everyone else is still asleep. This might actually be the best thing because I won't have to be concerned about noise or interruptions due to Trent picking the lock on my bedroom door so he can come in and use my PC. Yeah, I'll try for that. It seems like the best thing for everyone involved.

We have a groundhog in our yard. I wonder if we'll see him? That would be great, but I'm not going to go out to the yard and try to yank him out of his hole the way they do poor Punxutawney Phil. Phil has been known to bite the hell out of people for that, and rightly so. If some bonehead yanked me out of bed, thrust me into the cold and subjected me to the sudden and very rude awakening Phil gets with those flash bulbs popping in his face and all of that startling noise, I'd try to take out a finger or two myself. Anything to get the guy holding me to let go. The way I figure it, Phil's handler is basically asking to lose a finger.

We call our groundhog 'Jefferson Jake'. He's huge. I mean, really...flipping huge. He's got to be at least three feet from nose to tail, and when his winter coat comes in, he looks to be about as wide as he is tall. Jake is the cutest thing ever. He's also got some pretty long, swordlike teeth and moves way faster than a critter that fat ought to be able to. He's also known as 'Tubby Lightning' because of this. As round as he is, he can beat me to his hole before I even have the flash enabled on my digital camera, resulting in a lot of 'OH DAMN(!)' moments. His swiftness has been a real impediment to my photographic aspirations over the last eight years or so, until last summer when I finally got one still and some highly blurry footage. Blurry because I was leaning out of my bathroom window to get it. It was as close as I could get. Hopefully I'll be able to get some clearer shots this spring. It seems Jake likes to hang out under our shed, which just happens to be about ten feet (if that) away from the back bedroom window. If the babies are quiet and I don't lose my patience waiting for it I could get some really nice pictures of the utter furry fabulousness that is Jake.

Now that I think about it, the one good shot is still on my digital. I was reluctant to download it because the iMac lost or destroyed so much stuff I didn't want to risk it, especially since the pictures from the babies' school halloween parties, xmas, and lots of other Trent and Zoe related things were on there. Recently they've started interacting more and playing well together and I am all over that. Gotten some really cute pictures of the two of them the last few months as they've begun to discover they can actually be friends. Can NOT lose those. But since I'm using a PC now it's probably safe to unload the digital. I have several I'd like to post.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see if Jake puts in an appearance on his special day. Though if it were me, I'd go for the extra six weeks' rest. 'Cause naps are wonderful.

So, in honor of the upcoming festival I have the following videos from YouTube. The first is some information about Imbolc, the second is a response to the first video (which I just thought was nice), and the third is a Wiccan Imbolc ritual. Such a beautiful celebration! I hope to have my prayer beads completed by then so I can bless and consecrate them during my own ritual. I'm looking so forward to the sabbat!

When I see these videos on YouTube it always makes me long for a group to worship with. Not necessarily a coven, just a group of solitaries like myself, without the politics and rules of an initiatory coven. I used to know a girl in Baltimore who worshipped with a group like that and she loved it. She said this fellowship with other Pagans was one of the most fulfilling aspects of her religious experience.

I'd like to have that too, but I haven't been able to find one yet. This is a very conservative area and we do have to be careful. I refuse to hide who I am, but a lot of other Pagans aren't fortunate enough to have my same circumstances. They work outside of their homes, they live in even smaller communities than I do, and they have income and reputation at stake. I understand this because when I was employed outside of my home I had the exact same concerns. One day I will have to deal with it again. Right now my children need me to be close to home. The school calls me at least twice a week to come in and bring the babies some allergy meds, eczema meds, etc. Things only I can dispense. Then there are the frequent IEP meetings, conferences, volunteering...so many things to do. Things that I can't do and maintain a job because when the school calls, I'm going. That's it. My children come first in all things. One day though, I'm going to be back out there. I'm going to have to go back to being cautious for the sake of my income, so I know what they're going through. I wonder if it might also be for the sake of safety as well, because there have been some incidents. Minor, but numerous enough to make me concerned.

So I wonder if it will even be possible to find a group? Granted, they'd all have something to lose but there have to be some people in this area besides myself who want that connection too.

The challenge is in getting them out of the broom closet and into the circle.

Okay, I was wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

My former belief that 'Unrated Director's Cut' was equal to 'horror film perfection' has been thoroughly challenged by the bland offering that is Rob Zombie's version of Halloween (Unrated Director's Cut).

Where to begin?

I was exhausted when I first tried to watch it so I figured perhaps I was missing something. I discovered the next day, viewing it with Johnathan and with my system coursing with a delightful caffeine buzz, it was not me who was missing something, it was the film itself.

For starters, the scene in which Michael escapes has been changed dramatically. Gone is the attack on the guards, which was absolutely devastating. So much happened in the space of just a few seconds it left me practically breathless when John and I went to see it in the theater. The scene on the UDC, like the theatrical release, begins with Michael in his room at the mental hospital, but the similarities end there.

Warning: Spoilers Ahead!!!!

Two guards enter and proceed to rape a screaming female patient in Michael's presence. He goes off and kills them both, then it goes to the scene with Ishmael and he's gone. No broken chains, broken glass, gunshot...zippo. He quietly leaves the hospital then goes on to attack Grizzley at the truck stop.

What. The. Fuck...?

First off, the rape scene is incredibly realistic and graphic, and anyone who know me knows I can't stand this. Call it my tender sensibilities, call it flashbacks, whatever. It just bothers me. Badly. To smack us in the face with this disgusting bit of footage then water down the escape scene - thereby decreasing the effectiveness of the entire film - makes one wonder what the director's motivation was. Why did this seem like the way to go, versus leaving the original scene intact but making it somehow more intense?

Also, I'm curious; where the hell was Udo Kier? Granted, his appearance in the theatrical version was brief, but I do remember seeing him in two scenes. In the UDC he was credited, but unless I blinked and missed him he wasn't in the film. Udo Kier is a cult icon. Any footage of him, however brief, delights those of us who love him to no end. Why is he MIA in the UDC?

The scene in which Michael chases Boo (Laurie) through the house toward the end is likewise edited. I noticed that it was cut and a bit shorter than the theatrical version.

Overall, the film has far less impact than the one that had me exiting the theater on wobbly legs, heart racing. To be honest, I fell alseep the first time I tried to watch it, and not just because I was already tired.

Fortunately, the missing scenes are included on the special features disc, but watching them again leaves me to wonder; why did Rob Zombie opt to do butcher his own work this way? The original version was so amazingly good. John commented that Rob Zombie had out-Carpentered John Carpenter. The alternate ending is also included and while it was worth viewing, I'm glad Zombie chose to end the theatrical version of the film the way he did. It just does not make sense for the sheriff to be there to blow Michael Myers away when he has just discovered his daughter half naked and sliced to ribbons (yet thankfully still alive) on the floor in his foyer.

In short, I had to buy the theatrical version of the film to enjoy what I had so loved about my first viewing experience.

That said, I do disagree with some of the reviewers on Amazon, primarily in regard to comments about 'unknown' actors, or Zombie's use of cast he has previously worked with. There was a comment about 'B' actors that particularly annoyed me.

Does the reviewer mean 'B' actors like Brad Dourif, who has a career that spans over thirty years, beginning with One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, and who has been nominated for and won multiple awards for his work, including the Shawshank Redemption, the LOTR series (not to mention his voice work in the Child's Play series)?

Or does the writer mean 'B' actors like Clint Howard, who comes from a family that has been working in film since before his birth, and has a career that spans over forty years (from his childhood through to today), and who still works constantly?

Or perhaps he is talking about 'B' actors like Udo Kier and Sid Haig, both of whom have been working in film most of their lives and have attained cult status? Udo Kier starred in multiple horror films in the 70s and 80s and worked with Andy Warhol. Sid Haig has worked with Pam Grier and achieved cult status of his own by appearing in Blaxploitation films.

Danny Trejo, perhaps, who has been steadily working in film since 1983, and who has also worked on television, performed on soundtracks and has produced films? The same Danny Trejo who won the Feature Film award for his role in Valley of Angels?

Maybe he means Daeg Faerch, who has not even reached adolescence yet but has been steadily working since 2004?

The list could go on, but I can't, as I am going to have to log off soon and go make my babies some lunch, but by now I'm sure I've made my point. Methinketh mayhap there be quite a few folks writing reviews who haven't been into horror for very long. Or maybe they just don't live for it like I do. That's always possible. I'm sure not everyone delights in pouring over horror websites, magazines and books like I do, so it's possible that they just either enjoy the film (or not), based upon the film itself, without knowing the history and trivia behind it. That's cool. I don't understand non-fanatics (non-addicts??). I have to know all I possibly can if I really enjoy a film, series, or the work of a particular actor, author or video game - don't even get me started on ANYTHING having to do with Silent Hill or Resident Evil, I assure you, we will be here awhile.

Anyway, I paid (with tax, of course), over $30 at Borders for the UDC, then had to spend an additional $20+ for the theatrical version. Larry & John suggested that this is the reason why Rob Zombie released two such dramatically different versions of his film, but I don't want to be that cynical about it. I prefer to think that perhaps he had an artistic vision that was somehow fulfilled by doing so. Either way, I'd advise others to save themselves some money and just buy the theatrical version, which is clearly the better version of the film (in no way does my saying this indicate that my opinion of Rob Zombie has faltered in the least; I still think he's brilliant, I just do not understand why he made the alterations he chose to make to his film). Though collectors will no doubt want both.

Daeg Faerch and Rob Zombie...they are to love.

This is enough to make a woman anxious, if not downright angry.

I respect pharmacists. They're careful, they take the time to answer questions and they do the best they can to help their customers. Often they catch on that there's the possibility of a dangerous drug interaction before the doctor does, and they are quick to let everyone involved know. The ones who dispense at the CVS we use have gone to bat for us with the insurance company and called us to keep us informed whether things went well or not. I truly appreciate this, as dealing with Aetna has been horrible from the get-go.

This isn't about pharmacists in general. This is about the one who use their tender religious sensibilities as a reason to not do the job for which they are being paid.

Just the emotional trauma rape causes is enough to allow a woman the morning after pill ('Plan B'). I know that after mine I was neither emotionally or psychologically capable of handling the stress of a pregnancy. It took a long time before I could even think about sex again without feeling nauseous and dirty. Being given Plan B must be such a comfort to a woman or young girl who has been attacked. In the midst of all of this trauma and suffering, she'll have one less thing to worry about. Imagine a 12 year-old rape victim being refused Plan B - even if she has her mother's permission to use it - because it was refused to her by a person to whom she has no familial connection and indeed has most likely not even met, yet this person feels confident that he or she can make decisions on the child's behalf. He feels perfectly comfortable stepping in to mentor the child spiritually without parental or doctor consent.

Think about that.

A pharmacist has no more right to do this to a grown woman regardless of her reasons for using birth control. If she has been raped and needs Plan B, it is his/her job to dispense it. Whether she is married or single, if she needs to take birth control to prevent an unwanted pregnancy it is his/her job to dispense it. If a woman has a physical condition that responds to treament with birth control pills, it is his/her job to dispense them.

His or her job. Employment for which payment is received.

I used to be a vegetarian. I wouldn't have gotten a job in a meat processing plant and then refused to handle the meat because it went against my values. That's ridiculous and I'd have deserved to be fired for it.

It's common sense.

If you hate kids you don't go to work in a day care center. If you're allergic to or just generally dislike animals you don't get a job in a kennel. If you can't stand the sight of blood you don't become a nurse. And I dare say most Pagans wouldn't want to get a job with a christian organization that would require them to distribute tracts or go door-to-door.

See? Common sense. If you can't dedicate yourself to doing the entire job, even parts you don't like, GO WORK ELSEWHERE. Don't expect special treatment, don't change the laws so you can keep drawing a paycheck while refusing to do the job.

WORK ELSEWHERE. Simple.

It's not just about a woman's right to decide whether she is or isn't ready to have a baby, though that's definitely all the reason she needs. If she doesn't want a baby no pharmacist has the right to judge her or refuse her the means to prevent pregnancy from happening. It's also about women like myself who have a condition that is treatable with the hormones in birth control.

Adenomyosis is like endometriosis, only instead of depositing the menstrual tissue that should be shed during a woman's period on the outside of the uterus, it is deposited on an inner wall, inside the uterine muscle. The result is heavy, uncontrolled, bleeding and pain. Lots of intense pain. It also causes severe anemia. My blood iron was so low my doctor wanted to put me into the hospital for blood transfusions. I was dizzy, weak and tired and always felt freezing cold (in July and August on the east coast, no less) because I had temporarily lost the ability to control my body temperature. It took six months for the bleeding to stop completely and it only did after three months of treatment with birth control pills. My energy levels are continuing to go up, I am no longer constantly cold and my overall health is continuing to improve.

All that will change if I am refused my birth control pills.

After reading the article I posted above, I did a little research to see if Maryland has any laws which would protect a pharmacist who denied me my meds. Turns out there isn't a written law that directly gives anyone that right, but we do have what is known as a conscience clause. The conscience clause states that a person who finds that a specific part of his or her job compromises their religious or moral convictions it is acceptable to refuse to do it on those grounds.

So it would be perfectly legal for a pharmacist to refuse to fill my prescription if his or her christian sensibilities were offended. If that was the end of it I suppose that wouldn't be the end of the world because theoretically it can be taken somewhere else, but another degree of difficulty is added when the pharmacist refuses to pass the prescription along to another pharmacist to be filled, or hand the prescription back to the customer. I'd be frantic. I would literally be frantic after all I have been through with this condition and the length of time it took to get it under control. I haven't bled in over three weeks, which is the longest break I've gotten since last July. The (nearly) constant pain is under control as well and my body is healing. I can not go back to feeling that way and dealing with the anemia, which according to my doctor was so advanced it was life-threatening.

And why should I? For what purpose? To satisfy the conscience of someone I don't even know, whose job is (ironically) to dispense medicine, not moral judgements? Would it even make a difference to such a person if I explained that my husband had a vasectomy in 2001 and there's not the slightest chance of me becoming pregnant ever again anyway? Why should I have to do that in the first place? Isn't that issue supposed to be between myself, my husband and my doctor?

I'd like to ask those who support the pharmacists on this issue, why is that okay? Why is it that everyone else who is employed in any other field is expected to actually perform the task for which they are receiving payment, but these sanctimonious pharmacists get the privilege of potentially ruining someone's health by refusing to give a woman the medicine she needs while claiming moral objection? Even if all she wants is to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, how dare anyone interfere with that? She is taking responsibility for her own life and body. It is not part of the job description of any pharmacist to pass a moral judgement upon her, whether she is married or not, then act on that judgement by refusing to dispense her meds.

Do the job. Dispense the medicine and leave the moral and religious objections a the door, or find another field to work in. Theorizing about at what point life begins, whether or not preventing a pregnancy is equal to abortion, or what type of morality the customer is engaging in is NOT part of the description.

It has been suggested by several people online recently that pharmacists who refuse to dispense birth control should be made financially responsible for the babies that result from their interference. I think that's a great idea, but it's a little too idealogical to actually put into practice. People who are anti-abortion actually seem to care very little for the resulting baby and child. They'll scream at women and harrass them at abortion clinics, yet not a single one of these protesters is willing to contribute to the care, feeding and education of the baby once it arrives. They've done their part by convincing you to have it. What to do with it afterward is your problem.

So now they're willing to go a step further by imposing their religious ideals upon a woman as she is trying to act responsibly or do something to protect her own health? What gives them the right to do that?

People who stupidly support these pharmacists need to think about this. It is not the job of the religious right to babysit the rest of us. Being christian does not make you superior to all others nor does it give you the right to act as another adult's parent, guardian or advisor. It does not make your judgement correct or superior, regardless of your belief that it endows you with rights and responsibilities over the lives of others.

And it does not give you the right to do something that threatens my health or anyone else's. Nor does it absolve you of responsibility when someone is harmed.

The christian god does not care if a woman is harmed by such a pharmacist, but I can guarantee that any one of them who refuses to dispense my meds will when he or she hears from my attorney. I bet after that they'll never do it again, even if they're still allowed to practice, which I doubt they will be. I will prosecute. My case will not be about simply preventing a pregnancy. It will be about protecting my health, and it will send a clear message to the religious right that screwing with a person's health is not acceptable nor will it be tolerated.

As I said before, check your tender religious sensibilities at the door and do your job.

Or find yourself another door. It's that simple.

Alright people, look...

I'm going to say this slowly and using small words so that the idiotic Britney's a whore and her little sister is following her example crowd can understand it.

First off, you're wrong. Look at Britney's life thus far. Phase one: